I agree, it could be many things, but a man is at the bottom of my list of possibilities.

I also agree. It could be anything. The part to pay attention to is... "was that an explosion"? IDK. It's why I posted it as a seperate post. I was curious what others had to say about it. There's a lot of smart people on this board and I just wanted some opnions.

booNyzarC, on 08 June 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

In their heads, and it simply won't go away no matter what. There was a conspiracy by the Gods and no amount of reasoning can convince them otherwise.

Perhaps that's because honest people aren't willing to attribute a final answer to such things. Perhaps not "anything," but it really could have been a great many things. Do you disagree with that?

Don't think I'm not being honost. I didn't bring this in as evidence in an already established thread. I want to know what people think about this footage. If it's debunked, then here's the place to do so.

Even if it was just air, it had to build up some how. It's not air pressure from the collapse, that comes later. It's an explosion of something isn't it?

Don't think I'm not being honost. I didn't bring this in as evidence in an already established thread. I want to know what people think about this footage. If it's debunked, then here's the place to do so.

Even if it was just air, it had to build up some how. It's not air pressure from the collapse, that comes later. It's an explosion of something isn't it?

Assuming it is air, why is a partially collapsed ceiling not sufficient for an explanation? Supposing it is some kind of actual explosion, how are the myriad possible pieces of equipment of statically held explosive containers not sufficient for an explanation?

Assuming it is a demolition charge... why did it not go off with the rest of the supposed demolitions and why didn't it cause a more demolishing impact than what we see in the video?

We could speculate all day about this video and it would lead absolutely nowhere. Just like the truth movement as a whole has experienced.

Assuming it is air, why is a partially collapsed ceiling not sufficient for an explanation? Supposing it is some kind of actual explosion, how are the myriad possible pieces of equipment of statically held explosive containers not sufficient for an explanation?

Assuming it is a demolition charge... why did it not go off with the rest of the supposed demolitions and why didn't it cause a more demolishing impact than what we see in the video?

All good questions. I suppose you have one you prefer of the other. What is it?

booNyzarC, on 11 June 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

We could speculate all day about this video and it would lead absolutely nowhere. Just like the truth movement as a whole has experienced.

The one thing I've learned over the years is how any eveidence "truthers" bring to the table "could" be anything in the eyes of the OCT. I've also learned that a lot of what "OCT" brings to the table is often flimsy and debatabull.

All good questions. I suppose you have one you prefer of the other. What is it?

I don't have one that I prefer. I do find the demolition argument to be ridiculous though, so I guess that almost any other explanation than that would seem potentially plausible to me.

W Tell, on 11 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

The one thing I've learned over the years is how any eveidence "truthers" bring to the table "could" be anything in the eyes of the OCT. I've also learned that a lot of what "OCT" brings to the table is often flimsy and debatabull.

Want to know what I've learned? The truthers have absolutely nothing of substance and rely solely on speculative and questionable interpretations of everything.

W Tell, on 11 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

You include yourself as people right?

I am a person, if that is what you're asking. I'd also be more than happy to drop these ridiculous 911 discussions altogether were it not for my morbid curiosity about just how ridiculous other people allow themselves to get.

Err, say what? Explosions obviously don't require an air pressure buildup to happen.. but I'm guessing you probably just said it backwards. But I'm afraid you can have an explosion without *significant* air pressure buildup. If there *is* a significant blast of air, it is most likely to be from a collapsing ceiling segment. There are also some, but not many, 'explosive' sources within buildings that might be responsible.. But even assuming that the conspiracy was true - any explosive that caused *that* was clearly a complete failure - such charges are extremely tightly directed and *very* unlikely to waste their energy blowing lots of air outwards...

Quote

It's not air pressure from the collapse, that comes later.

That's just silly - the area is obviously suffering from a great deal of damage, there are fires blazing - collapsing walls and ceilings, or even combustible chemicals in, say a cleaning cupboard could be causing all sorts of effects and blowouts. What's more a bit of lateral thinking should tell you that with things like liftshafts and air con ducts, there are numerous connections between floors, and a presure buildup in some areas might take quite a convoluted path before finding the weakest escape point.

I'm sure you would rather dismiss such musings with simplistic one line claims that try to reduce very complex scenarios to little black and white cameos.. But that isn't how the real world works. And it's why armchair 'expert' pronoucements count for pretty much nuthin. Mine are equally valuable, of course, but I'll let the esteemed readers judge who has put a bit of thought into their work, and who hasn't..

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

"Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the CIA does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies or rational explanation and evidence." - Gerald K Haines

I don't have one that I prefer. I do find the demolition argument to be ridiculous though, so I guess that almost any other explanation than that would seem potentially plausible to me.

Anything "but a demolition is fine by you. Cool.

booNyzarC, on 11 June 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

Want to know what I've learned? The truthers have absolutely nothing of substance and rely solely on speculative and questionable interpretations of everything.

Truthers haven't got that market covered. As you've shown above, you'll take "anything" over a demolition.

booNyzarC, on 11 June 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

I am a person, if that is what you're asking. I'd also be more than happy to drop these ridiculous 911 discussions altogether were it not for my morbid curiosity about just how ridiculous other people allow themselves to get.

...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:10 AM

W Tell, on 08 June 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Another intellagent post by Boony......

That's "intelligent".
If you're going to attempt a sarcastic remark about someone, and attack the intelligence of their post, one might at least spell the word correctly.

Oh, and by the way, we'd take proof of a demolition, if that wasn't simply imaginative constructs of CT mindsets..
But it is, and all these years later, not a one of you has presented anything but speculation about your contention.